All Considering » Christianity

God’s hat – a theology joke

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:43:05 +0000

There were two tribes dwelling near each other. God decided to walk between them. But God wore a two colored hat. One side was red; the other side was blue. So when the two tribes discussed this visit by God, they ended up in argument. “God wore a blue hat. No! God wore a red hat.” To make matters worse, on the walk back, God rotated the hat, so that the blue side would always be facing one tribe and the red side would always face the second tribe. So that each tribe was sure that they had seen both sides of God’s hat.

Blavatsky about the symbolism of the Christian Cross

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:33:06 +0000

One of my Dutch readers wondered after reading my piece about symbols, about the meaning of the Christian Cross according to H.P. Blavatsky. I thought I’d look it up. The closest I could find on the topic was Blavatsky on Crucifixion. She says there that:

The cross itself, to which the whole man was attached, is a well-known phallic emblem, representing the strongest form of human-earth sensuality; and that is a very symbol on which to crucify the man to death.

The horizontal stands for the female, the vertical for the male. It’s phallic and limited at least in part because the circle is missing. The circle puts the whole thing in the context of the Universe, the All, the Divine etc. This is why many theosophists prefer the Egyptian cross. Without the circle the cross can only stand as a symbol for something in the world, not for the sumtotal.

Madame Blavatsky compares Jesus on the cross to Prometheus, who also was made to hang and suffer. He hung from a rock, not a cross, but the spiritual significance isn’t much different.

He is another victim, for he is crucified on the Cross of Love, on the rock of human passions, a sacrifice to his devotion to the cause of the spiritual element in Humanity.

but…

after the Cross comes the transfiguration

That is: through suffering and spiritual death, new life is possible in spirit. That’s as far as I can go for the individual interpretation, however there’s also a more universal meaning hinted at here. The spiritual is trapped in the physical, through which it learns and suffers. Were it but free! However, we’re meant to be stuck here.

Comment Zen

This is my interpretation of Blavatsky. Don’t mistake it for my opinion on the subject. I don’t know much about the Divine after all. Other interpretations are welcome.

What’s normal – about conditioning

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:03:46 +0000

Religion and social pressure are two sides of the same coin. Religion gives meaning to our lives, shapes our actions – which means that people who let their lives be shaped by other pressures than our own, are by definition strange. Hard to deal with. This comes out, in the USA, in people pretending they’re Christian when really they are not. This results in Christians feeling more people are ‘like them’ than is truly the case. Even children…

In the Netherlands, when I was growing up, being religious was taboo for educated people – pretty much the way NOT believing is taboo for many people world wide. So it was a shock to me, when I lived in Austin Texas for a year (I was 12) to overhear a boy in the corridor say to another kid about someone who did not believe in God: they had to be crazy. Things like that become very important to kids at a certain age. Especially in the insecurity of puberty, social rules get magnified. The social rule that boy had grown up with was: everybody believes in God. The social rule I had grown up with was: most people don’t believe in God. He associated believing in God with sanity. I associated NOT believing in God with intelligence.

I did not believe in God at that time – I still don’t in any conventional sense. But the shock didn’t only have to do with my beliefs being invalidated. It also had to do with the culture shock of my ‘what’s normal’ being denied.

Kids will create a sense about what’s normal out of anything. They will be conditioned to it even if the people around them are trying desperately to overcome conditioning. This is clear from reading the biography about Krishnamurti written by the girl he pretty much raised: Lives in the Shadow: with J. Krishnamurtiby Radha Sloss. That biography is usually treated as a hard iron attack on Jiddu Krishnamurti. In fact, when I got it I could hardly read it at first. But more recently I did end up reading it and what impressed me most was precisely this: this woman grew up in the shadow of Krishnamurti’s fame. She knew him as a father, because her real father was absent a lot. She knew him as her mother’s lover. But when she grew up, her family broken up because Krishnamurti had broken with her father (his accountant and editor) and her parents had divorced. To top it off, when she came to see him at the end of his life, she hardly got in to see Krishnamurti because his entourage did not know who she was. And Krishnamurti, firmly impersonal in his public role, did not correct them.

That’s the main story in that book, but getting back to conditioning. Radha Sloss was raised by Krishnamurti and her mother to be adverse to dogma and creed. She had to overcome that in college when she had to learn about liberalism and socialism and all the other isms. Overcoming her conditionings to be able to listen to what people did actually believe and shocked at it. It’s one of the advantages of college that one gets to see society from a different perspective than what one grew up with, broaden the mind. But the point: we all have conditioning to overcome.

As that sad story about the Buddhist girl pretending to be Christian shows though: this conditioning stuff is a hard business.

Rudolf Steiner and theosophy – about local versus universal wisdom

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:30:59 +0000

I’ve been reading ‘Rudolf Steiner Erdenleben und Werken’ (aka: Rudolf Steiner‘s earth life and works) by G. Wachsmuth. It’s a good biography, though obviously written by someone who is a fierce devotee of Steiner. He tells Steiner’s story as Steiner might have wanted it told. For my purposes this is good: I want to know the ideals, the mythology of Anthroposophy, as much as I want to learn the facts of his day to day existence.

I’ve not finished the book yet – I’m still reading about the years that Steiner was a member of the Theosophical Society. But it’s already clear that Steiner has his own priorities when it comes to where he needs to go – and they have nothing to do with the Theosophical Society. Because Wachsmuth is so very thorough in reporting just what Steiner said on important topics in what year, it is clear that Steiner already had great misgivings about the TS before he left it/was expelled. From my perspective those misgivings were hypocritical, but we’ll get to that later.

Let’s start with Steiner’s mission on earth, as he probably saw it: he wanted to integrate Western Wisdom with the esoteric tradition. He wanted to bring out the underlying truths in Goethe’s work, as well as other philosophers of the ‘Abendland’. Abendland is German for what has been called the Occident, or the Western World. It’s clear from the way the term is used though that it’s a more specific cultural stream than that: those people who have united in their culture the Roman, German and Christian heritage.

We should remember that Steiner lived to see the decline of Germany as one of the great superpowers until it lost in World War 1. Dying in 1925, he did not live to see the Great Depression, which would hit Germany hard and would prepare it for Hitler.

What Steiner was in effect doing, I think, was standing up for Germanic wisdom – and bringing it up to date with the spiritual and scientific insights of the time. He integrated the most important of theosophical ideas into his anthroposophy: karma, reincarnation and human spiritual evolution. Though of course he gave a personal spin on the latter concept. I say ‘of course’ because no one has been able to do otherwise on that topic. It turns out to be very hard to wrap every detail up in a vision of human spiritual evolution. The latest to try that I know of is Ken Wilber, but Blavatsky had preceded Steiner in the attempt.

Steiner saw the theoretical bend of most theosophical lectures and didn’t like it at all. For instance he once reported on discussions about building schools, creating magazines and other things. He felt that instead of discussing such things, one should just do them (p. 140). Can’t help but admire someone like that. In the doing many of the questions one has in advance will iron themselves out. Usually plans and their execution are very different things – so to just act is often a good idea. One can always change things that don’t work or aren’t in line with one’s vision.

It would not be fair to Steiner to suggest he didn’t take in the Eastern Wisdom the Theosophical Society brought to the West. He did. He lectured on topics like Buddha and Christ. His conclusion was always that there were initiates all over the world: Buddha being one of them. But Christ was special. His dying for humanity at Golgotha was a landmark occasion in human spiritual evolution. It changed things fundamentally. In order to iron out inconsistencies in the Bible, he came to the conclusion that there had been two Jesus Children. This makes his Christology rather unique of course.

What’s important for our narrative is that Steiner was busy with a LOCAL version of wisdom. This is fine, as long as it doesn’t become exclusive. Most of us have favorite spiritual stories and ideas, and they’re usually based on the religion we grew up with. However, as president of the German section of the Theosophical Society it was his duty to stand up for the freedom of each person to find truth wherever they could. This is where the paradox or hypocrisy comes in. He did always stress that people should be free to find their own truths and should investigate for themselves. He had this in common with Annie Besant, but didn’t seem to realize it. He felt Besant and C.W. Leadbeater were mostly building up a series of doctrines that people were supposed to either believe or leave.

In the end Steiner did leave. He had already founded the Anthroposophical Society when Annie Besant expelled him for not allowing members of the Order of the Star into the German Section of the Theosophical Society. This is hypocritical because this meant, in effect, that people who decided for themselves to belong to that organization, could not be in his. That meant they had to either believe it, or leave the TS. In other words: he became on this issue what he accused Besant of being. And of course, she had to expel him. It was a set up piece, he knew the time had come for him to go in his own direction. And of course most of his followers, and therefor most of the members of the German Section went with him.

The result is, for better or worse, that the Anthroposophical Society is mostly about Steiner. It has founded schools, created a whole field of alternative medicine, alternative agriculture and much else. Steiner’s teachings have a very practical side to them that has been fruitful in many directions.

In contrast the Theosophical Society (with headquarters in Adyar) is still a place where people come together to try and find universal wisdom. The result is that in the TS there will be lectures on Buddhism, Yoga, Alternative Christianity and Gnosticism. The Theosophical Library in Adyar is world famous for the rare Indian manuscripts it has preserved. There is hardly a topic theosophists won’t discuss. And yes, that has the weakness of being mostly about talking, not doing. Because how can the universal ever become specific enough to guide action? That translation from spiritual to practical is mostly left up to the individual members, though in the area of charity the Theosophical Order of Service does do a lot of good in India, Pakistan, the US and other countries. And in the theosophical spirit it does so without imposing any ideas on people and without regard for people’s background.

For me personally the quest for truth is too important to let local considerations be important. Only when one looks at the whole – the whole of humanity – can understanding of underlying issues be fully understood. This is exemplified by the current economic crisis: it shows that local experts just don’t know enough to deal with a crisis of this kind. It takes a global working together. Similarly, ecological problems don’t limit themselves to the boundaries of countries or cultures. Polluted air goes everywhere. The falling of PH in the seas isn’t limited to Iceland or China. Global climate change is indeed global, even if the effects are very different locally.

More about Steiner and Theosophy.

Disadvantages to kindness…

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:45:59 +0000

Alright – that title is a bit over the top. The thing is, I’ve been pondering the difficulty of managing groups filled with people who all mean well (you’ll read why later on). Or rather – the majority means well, wants to be kind and all that. The disadvantage is… that unkind people can create havoc in such groups.

It’s a classic philosophical problem. I think Pascal formalized it first (please correct me if I’m wrong): In the realm of the ideal Christian (meek, kind, turning the other cheek), the one selfish person is king. So how does one have an organisation, or a community, of people who try to live as ‘a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity‘?

The easiest solution is to scorn all organizations. To keep on migrating online to whatever spiritual forum or ning has not been spoiled yet. The second obvious solution is for the leaders to just get rid of those that they don’t like. This is the solution that has given the Catholic Church such a bad name in certain quarters.

But let’s focus on the reason I’m asking these questions. An online theosophical community has recently faced first the expulsion of a trouble maker – then the expulsion of the moderator who expelled her - then the reintroduction of the trouble maker – then the moderator leaving the community. Yes, I’m taking the side of the moderator on this one. The lady who was expelled had been rubbing me the wrong way for a while.

[edit] I’m not talking about myself. I’m still a member of that community and will remain active there depending on the quality of the conversation. I have NOT been expelled or banned. [/edit]

What happens in such a community full of decent people – is that the person who was expelled gets defended. I think it’s a reflexive defense of the underdog. But if one doesn’t protect the lambs from the wolf, how can the lambs be expected to live? The troublemaker has been making trouble on that forum, and while it’s still active, I expect the atmosphere to deteriorate further.

As an ethical and spiritual question it’s a hard one: when is it kindness to give Love for Anger? And when is it best to be firm and strict? When to ignore misbehavior – knowing that ignoring it may well bore the person who is being a nuisance – and when to step in and say something?

I was terrible at this balance when I was teaching middle school math. I have a tendency to respond to everybody & everything. Online this usually works alright – keeps the conversation going – but I do have to reign myself in when I have nothing kind to say. Recently I’ve been deleting my own comments from this blog for instance.

Getting back to the other reason why this is relevant: the moderator who was expelled and a few others, including yours truly, have started a new theosophical forum. If you want to be invited (it’s invitation only for the moment, though we’ll be going public in a few days), say so in the comments.

In forums the issue is simple: how to have a lively forum where people feel free to express themselves, yet avoid flame wars?

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 10 comments |
Posted in : Christianity, Spiritual Growth, Spiritual Teachers

The difference between spiritual growth and personal development?

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:05:18 +0000

Michael asked me on my Dutch blog:

What’s the difference between personal and spiritual growth anyhow? I think self knowledge is perhaps the only spiritual or personal growth there is, isn’t it?

It’s a very good question. Depending on ones spiritual background, one can go into this very deeply, or just skimp the surface. Ken Wilber has tried to chart levels of spiritual development in people very precisely. He ended up with eight levels (or colors), if I understand him correctly.

In the yoga tradition Enlightenment itself (Samadhi that is) has levels. There are different kinds of Samadhi and one is better than the other.

But in our day to day talk about this spiritual growth and personal development do tend to mix. There’s a lot that is called spiritual, that I’d personally categorize as personal development. And yes, in both self knowledge is an important aspect of it. But to be complete a third stage has to be added, which leads me to three forms of growth or development:

Personal Development
Spiritual Growth
Quest for Enlightenment (Moksha, Samadhi, Nirvana, Redemption)

Personal development does not have to be spiritual. People who follow a course in pottery making or gardening are personally developing themselves. Personal growth can take the form of keeping up to date in your profession. Psychotherapy too is a way to do personal growth. In short: anything that helps you to function better in your day to day life – personally or professionally – is a form of personal development.

Personal development does not have to be spiritual. None of the examples I gave above are spiritual in any sense. But those who take a management course will in some cases be given meditation exercises. This means that personal growth seminars use spiritual techniques. Does this mean it’s spiritual what they’re doing there? I’m not sure. I think it can only be called spiritual if people transcend themselves, or there is reference to a higher power, god or inspiration. But even if God is called upon, if the goal is material success or riches – is that very spiritual?

For me it’s spiritual development only when people learn to be more ethical in their day to day life and business and learn to contribute (more) to society. Old fashioned or new ‘values’ should play a part – for it to be called spiritual growth. I personally also use the words ‘spiritual growth’ when I talk about how spiritual insights can help us live more peaceful lives, improve our relationships and prevent problems.

But that could also be called personal growth. The words ‘personal growth’ do sound more selfish. Things like learning to be more productive, dealing with stress and becoming successful fall under personal development. Nothing wrong with it, but it is focused on ME. This transforms into spiritual growth, I think, when the effect of our actions on others is taken into account.

Spiritual growth also includes the support people can feel from being part of something Larger. For instance: people who convert to Christianity, because they find in Jesus the strength to overcome Alcoholism. I’d personally label that experience differently, but the personal transformation involved certainly has a spiritual component.

There is a gliding scale between developing hidden aspects of oneself (personal development) and transforming yourself and reintegrating yourself (spiritual growth). In the latter case spiritual experiences will play a part in more cases.

Buddhism and Hinduism go a step further. Their basic assumption is that human beings can be liberated from the maelstrom of daily struggles. This liberation does not involve suppressing emotions, but not being touched by them. Nirvana and Moksha are states of consciousness that go beyond the ordinary. Those who follow one of these paths are on the quest to Enlightenment or Awakening. There is more to this path than merely living an ethical life and a sense that ‘there is more’. This path asks in addition dedication and perseverance. It’s also a revolutionary path in the sense that it can get rid of all material and social wealth – because ultimately money and status don’t matter.

Personal and spiritual growth too can result in drastic changes in one’s day to day life – change of job, new relationships, new friends etc. The search for Awakening or Awareness (if I may translate Nirvana like that) ultimately goes a step further: the environment we live in becomes less important. This does not necessarily involve retreat into a convent. The implication is that the goal no longer has anything to do with the environment, only with our inner state. Ultimately, so they say, the very idea of a ‘goal’ drops away as well.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 15 comments |
Posted in : Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and India, Spiritual Growth

Generosity and detachment – spiritual virtue no. 5

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:30:36 +0000

Generosity is, for once, a classic virtue. In Islam it’s called Zakat: the duty to give a percentage of your possessions to the poor.

Generosity is linked to another classic virtue: detachment. In both Hinduism and Buddhism attachment to stuff, money and status is seen as a problem. Letting go of that in the form of generosity is spiritual work. In Christianity too giving to the poor is a central virtue.

Attachment to status is subtler. A lot of people notice this only when it becomes a problem: the boss that ends up in a retirement home. The socialite (is that still a word?) that can’t keep up anymore because of Alzheimer.

At such moments letting go becomes a necessity. This is the reason that in countries like Japan Buddhism is for old people: that’s when letting go becomes the central life lesson.

In my series on spiritual virtues, norms and values.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments |
Posted in : Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and India, Islam and Sufism, Life style

Busy week ahead – Merry Christmas everybody :)

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:53:15 +0000

Hi all,

I don’t think I’ll be blogging all that much this week. So I think I’ll just say Merry Christmas now, when I still have the time. We’ve got a big Christmas celebration coming up with my family (kids and grandkids of my one still alive grandmother) – since it’s in the town where I live, I’ll be helping out a lot.

I’ve had a great time blogging these past months, so I thought I’d share the most popular posts on this blog so far. The most commented are:

Aside from the many comments my blogposts are attracting (thanks everyone) this blog now has about 50 pageviews a day. Not bad for a new blog, I think.
Unfortunately google analytics only has statistics for December – so I don’t know how this compares to previous months (don’t know where the statistics went). It is clear however that one post (aside from the ones mentioned above) was very popular: Messengers of the Masters or the Great White Brotherhood.

I think that’s likely it for 2008 …

Those times when life forces rest on you…

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:13:52 +0000

Whether it’s illness, unemployment or some other reason – sometimes life forces us to sit still, think things through, relax – because there is just no other alternative.

I don’t think anyone is ever grateful for unemployment or disease, but sometimes we can be grateful for their side effects: a chance to reevaluate life.

One of the earliest spiritual books I read was left by a previous inhabitant of the house I moved into when starting college for the first time (I ended up attending college several times, but that’s another story). It was a Dutch translation of ‘Servitude et Grandeur de la Maladie’ by France Pastorelli. The title translates into English as something like ‘Service and majestic suffering’.

It’s a moving story of a lady who is ill with ever iminent heart failure and who finds a way to use her illness for the better. She ends up living her life so inspirationally that her daughter is happy to have had an ill, but blessed mother, instead of a healthy ordinary one. (...)
Read the rest of Those times when life forces rest on you… (839 words)

World War 2 story of spiritual teachers – Interviewing my grandmother

Katinka - Spirituality — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:44:25 +0000

My grandmother is living in a retirement home. She has trouble remembering the name of her eldest brother, and whether he still lives (he doesn’t). There are suggestions she might have Alzheimer’s disease. But when I asked her what spiritual teacher of the last century had inspired her most – the following conversation occurred (I’m translating from my Dutch notes). She gave permission for me to publish this in my ‘online column’.
(...)
Read the rest of World War 2 story of spiritual teachers – Interviewing my grandmother (328 words)

All Considering » Christianity

God’s hat – a theology joke

Related Posts

Blavatsky about the symbolism of the Christian Cross

Comment Zen

Related Posts

What’s normal – about conditioning

Related Posts

Rudolf Steiner and theosophy – about local versus universal wisdom

Related Posts

Disadvantages to kindness…

Related Posts

The difference between spiritual growth and personal development?

Related Posts

Generosity and detachment – spiritual virtue no. 5

Related Posts

Busy week ahead – Merry Christmas everybody :)

Related Posts

Those times when life forces rest on you…

World War 2 story of spiritual teachers – Interviewing my grandmother